Typically, electronic devices, including portable electronic devices, lack uniform or compatible accessory systems. Such devices typically have dedicated shapes and requirements for accessory connectors. For example, such accessory connectors may be manufactured to fit and work with just one type and brand of electronic device. Throughout this disclosure, the terms “dedicated connector” and “accessory connector” may be used to connote “a connector of an accessory poduct for use with a particular electronic device.”
In general, the current prevalence of dedicated connectors poses several disadvantages for consumers and retailers. First, many consumers dislike the confusion caused by the lack of uniformity and compatibility of accessories for electronic devices. Finding the right accessory which corresponds to the right connector for the right electronic device may be considered to be a chore by many consumers. This may be because more consumers are not inherently interested in how accessories connect to electronic devices, but care only that the accessories work with their electronic devices. In particular, small electronic devices may use accessories and connectors that are themselves small and lack distinctive features noticeable to consumers. Thus, in order to find the right accessories and connectors, consumers must match them to model numbers that, too, are almost always in formats lacking inherent distinctiveness or interest to consumers, e.g., “MOTOROLA T300p.”
Second, the prevalence of dedicated connectors often means that retailers feel they must stock and display accessories with a variety of different accessory connectors for many of the electronic devices they carry. This can amount to dozens of different accessories and accessory connector types needing to be stocked and displayed. The disadvantage to retailers is that to the extent consumers rely on sales staff help to guide them through the maze of accessories and connectors, such service to consumers may represent a drain on retailer resources (resulting in higher prices to consumers), as well as resources diverted from the sale of items leading to greater production revenue.
Third, for all of the reasons listed above, consumers may more likely err in the purchase of electronic device accessories, resulting in consumer disappointment and inconvenience. To the extent retailers make good these inevitable consumer mistakes, retailers may need to absorb increased packaging and labor costs to process returns.
To overcome the foregoing problems, there have been a number of developments in the past to provide packaging denoted herein as “try me” packaging. Such packaging may generally be sealed to prevent shoppers from handling the merchandise within the package. In the specific case of accessories for electronic devices, the packaging may comprise one or more openings to permit shoppers to gain access to a portion of the merchandise. Thus, shoppers may now feel the quality of the accessories and test the accessories with an electronic device to determine its suitability for the device. By means of “try me” packaging, this may be done without breaking the seal of the packaging, purchasing the merchandise, or rendering it unfit for subsequent sale. “Try me” packaging often may eliminate the need for consumers to match model numbers on accessories with electronic devices, in turn, enhancing the shopping experience, reducing the need for sales help, and reducing mistaken purchases and returns. Moreover, advantageously, the cost of returns for retailers may be much reduced.
A number of different disclosures reveal strategies for providing “try me” packaging systems. However, these disclosures fall short of solving all of the problems presented by the merchandising of accessories for portable electronic devices.
Thus, in one example, Kelner, U.S. Pat. No. 4,702,374, disclosed a package assembly with a testing feature for an illumination product. The particular issue addressed by Kelner was the problem of determining whether merchandise contained within a sealed package, specifically a flashlight and the like, was in good working order. Kelner's package assembly provided an opening in the sealed package for an electrical connector to be plugged into an electrical outlet to test whether the illumination product within the package would light up or not. However, Kelner failed to address the problem of testing the compatibility of a packaged accessory with an electronic device.
In a further example, Kiernan, U.S. Pat. No. 4,899,877, disclosed a merchandising package for tools, such as screwdrivers. Using Kiernan's merchandising package, a retailer may securely display tools for sale in such a way that shoppers may manipulate the tools. For example, shoppers may turn the handle of a screwdriver in order to determine whether they like its feel. However, Kiernans's disclosure is not directed to electronic device accessories and, further, exposes the packaged merchandise in a way unsuited to accessories for electronic devices.
In a yet further example, Vasudeva, U.S. Pat. No. 6,241,092, disclosed a merchandising display for tools, such as screwdrivers, allowing them to be effectively fully exposed to handling by shoppers, yet securely fastened to a display rack. However, Vasudeva's disclosure does not appear to be directed to electronic device accessories and, in fact, exposed the packaged merchandise in a way unsuited to accessories for electronic devices.
Lebron, U.S. Pat. No. 6,349,830, disclosed a merchandising package for replacement electronic device accessories, such as battery packs for cordless telephone handsets. Lebron attempts to solve the problem of enabling consumers to check the compatibility of replacement accessories by bringing the spent accessory to the store to try with a dummy plug matching interface, but without removing the accessory or its connector from a sealed merchandising package. However, Lebron does not accomplish this by using a traditional “try me” feature. Instead, Lebron, uses one or another of two types of simulated or dummy plug matching coupling interfaces: (1) a dummy coupling interface molded into the outer plastic surface wall of the package, simulating the interface for mating with the connector of the accessory within the package; or (2) a opening in the outer plastic surface of the package exposing the actual plug matching coupling interface for mating with the packaged accessory's connector. Lebron's disclosure has several apparent shortcomings. It is unclear whether connector interfaces for electronic device accessories can practically be molded into a cheap plastic merchandising package to a degree of refinement enabling them to fulfill the purpose of testing compatibility with an electronic device. This is especially true in the case of male connectors, where the coupling interface has to be a molded protrusion projecting outward from the outer plastic surface wall of the package, and has to be fine enough to fit properly into the small, refined plug of an electronic device. Further, unlike traditional “try me” displays, where the connector to be tested is typically nested and horizontally positioned within a recess of the outer plastic surface wall of the merchandising package, Lebron's disclosure positions the dummy plug matching interface connector outwardly. With this approach the connector is shielded from damage and its electrical contact surfaces are shielded from contamination. However, positioning the connector outwardly, especially in the cast of male connectors, exposes it to greater damage and contamination.
In yet another example, Schein et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,953,117, disclosed sales packaging for electric storage batteries featuring a specialized “try me” feature. According to Schein et al.: (1) the sales package consists of a blister pack positioned on a portion of the cardboard backing of a hanging rack display; (2) the merchandise is sealed within the blister pack, except for an opening through the cardboard backing to permit the connector cord of the packaged accessory to exit the rear of the sealed blister pack; (3) the connector cord threads up the back of the sales package; and (4) the connector at the end of the cord pokes through to the front of the non-blister pack, display portion of the cardboard backing. The disadvantages of Schein et al. appear to be that the overall size of the sales package must be increased in order to accommodate a cardboard backing portion that is larger than the blister pack containing the merchandise, and the connector of the accessory being sold may be highly exposed to damage and contamination. Larger packaging also translates to increased cost of packaging and reduced shelf space for most electronics retailers.
Eisenbraun, U.S. Pat. No. 6,968,950, disclosed an interactive merchandising package sealed on all sides except for a “try me” feature at the front enabling shoppers to test the compatibility of their portable electronic devices with the connector of the accessory within the package. The claimed inventive feature of Eisenbraum is placement of the “try me” feature in a recess at the front of the merchandising package. The recess provides protection against damage for the exposed connector. Placement at the front of the package enables shoppers to use the “try me” feature without removing the package from a merchandise display rack. The shortcoming of Eisenbraum is that placement of the “try me” feature at the front of the merchandising package (1) obscures the product display and (2) detracts from the overall appearance of the package, since connectors, for example, are generally the least attractive parts of portable electronic device accessories.
As may be evident from the above, even though a great number of “try me” packages have been disclosed and may exist in the marketplace, each of them may have features that detract from the needs of both consumers and of merchandisers. Consequently, there is a need for new and improved “try me” packages, especially of the type most suitable as packaging for electronic device accessories intended for merchandising display.